Journal of interventional cardiology · 2017
Head-to-head comparison of prasugrel versus ticagrelor in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sakurai Ryota, Burazor Ivana, Bonneau Heidi N, Kaneda Hideaki
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
BACKGROUND: Evidence from randomized head-to-head comparison between prasugrel and ticagrelor is rare regarding clinical endpoints.
METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were queried with the terms "prasugrel," "ticagrelor," and "randomized." Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or the same terms were also surveyed using clinicaltrials.gov, escardio.org, pcronline.org, and tctmd.com. The clinical endpoints were death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and stent thrombosis (ST) for efficacy, and any bleeding for safety.
RESULTS: A total number of 2068 patients in 12 RCTs, whose longest follow-up period was 6 months, was included in this study. The risks of death (odds ratio [OR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-1.62, P = 0.647), MI (OR: 1.61, 95%CI: 0.71-3.62, P = 0.252), stroke (OR: 1.45, 95%CI: 0.25-8.36, P = 0.680), and ST (OR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.20-2.81, P = 0.677) were similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor, respectively. While the incidence of bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definitions was also comparable (OR: 0.83, 95%CI: 0.45-1.52, P = 0.539), that according to the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction criteria was lower in prasugrel than ticagrelor (OR: 0.49, 95%CI: 0.24-0.97, P = 0.042).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the efficacy was similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor, prasugrel may be associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with ticagrelor during short- to mid-term follow-up period after PCI. Further studies are warranted in a larger patient population during longer-term follow up to validate these findings.
BACKGROUND: Evidence from randomized head-to-head comparison between prasugrel and ticagrelor is rare regarding clinical endpoints.
METHODS: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were queried with the terms "prasugrel," "ticagrelor," and "randomized." Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or the same terms were also surveyed using clinicaltrials.gov, escardio.org, pcronline.org, and tctmd.com. The clinical endpoints were death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and stent thrombosis (ST) for efficacy, and any bleeding for safety.
RESULTS: A total number of 2068 patients in 12 RCTs, whose longest follow-up period was 6 months, was included in this study. The risks of death (odds ratio [OR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-1.62, P = 0.647), MI (OR: 1.61, 95%CI: 0.71-3.62, P = 0.252), stroke (OR: 1.45, 95%CI: 0.25-8.36, P = 0.680), and ST (OR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.20-2.81, P = 0.677) were similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor, respectively. While the incidence of bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definitions was also comparable (OR: 0.83, 95%CI: 0.45-1.52, P = 0.539), that according to the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction criteria was lower in prasugrel than ticagrelor (OR: 0.49, 95%CI: 0.24-0.97, P = 0.042).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the efficacy was similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor, prasugrel may be associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with ticagrelor during short- to mid-term follow-up period after PCI. Further studies are warranted in a larger patient population during longer-term follow up to validate these findings.